An anonymous Reddit user feared that his fiancé’s sister’s baby could disrupt the ceremony, which is supposed to be largely “child-free.”

A future couple cannot agree on where one of the youngest family members should sit during the upcoming ceremony.

An anonymous Reddit user took to a popular forum to voice concerns about her fiancée’s sister – who is currently pregnant and plans to bring the newborn – sitting close to the altar with the rest of the family. The post explained that the expected baby was one of the few exceptions to the otherwise “child-free wedding.” The couple is only allowing their siblings’ and cousins’ children, aged between 3 and 11, to attend the ceremony “because they’re family.”

“I’m concerned about a newborn crying during the ceremony, which is very important to us as babies just always cry,” the user wrote. “I suggested that if my fiancé’s siblings want to attend, they can sit in a back corner so they can leave quickly if needed and it won’t interfere with the ceremony or videographer.”

The post continued: “My fiancé thinks it’s rude to suggest this before the baby is even born and is upset by the idea. I’m stressed about planning and want to minimize disruption as much as possible.”

Related topics: Wedding singer gives performance for friend’s reception. After argument, bride still expects free band

Hoping to hear objective views on who is in the wrong, the Reddit user pointed out that the couple had agreed on a childless policy, with the exception of the young members of the family.

“We will welcome the children at the reception but would like a peaceful ceremony,” they added in the post, admitting that this was already a compromise to their original wish to have a wedding without children. “I consider a newborn to be much more unpredictable as, in my experience, they can cry at any time.”

The author of the post admitted to having limited knowledge of child behavior, not being a father himself, and not knowing the children on the guest list particularly well. In addition to his post, he shared that the wedding cost “a lot of money,” why such details were so important to the couple, and why they “plan so much or stress out about this decision.”

One respondent pointed out that the newborn was not the only unpredictable member of the crowd, and others agreed.

“I don’t think you understand the concept of a child-free wedding if you’re allowing children,” the commenter wrote. “I’m sorry to break it to you, but the (three-year-old) is much more likely to disrupt your ceremony than the baby.”

Related: Black tie wedding text invitation contains questionable requests for guests to eat elsewhere and send cash gifts

Another anonymous response recalled that, in their experience, wedding guests are usually understanding when children cause disruption.

“Every wedding I have been to where a baby cried or a small child was for some reason loud enough to be heard during the ceremony was met with kindness, understanding, and (depending on the nature of the disruption – questions or a sweet sound) laughter.”

In conclusion, the same user questioned the validity of the author’s concerns: “Your wedding should definitely be about you and your wishes, but for heaven’s sake, you’re not going to take a video of the ceremony and submit it to the Oscars,” he wrote, adding: “Who cares if a baby cries for a minute or two during your wedding as long as your friends and loved ones are there to celebrate you and your fiancé?”

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive more People news!

Read the original article on People.